Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

From:

norm

Subject:

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Date:

Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:32:51 -0700

Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:
>Okay, hopefully we've beaten this whole thing into the ground, and after
>all that here's what I suggest we do for 1.7:
>
>1) forw be changed so -mime is the default. So if you, for example, still
>want to send a RFC 934 digest, you'd have to use -nomime.
>
>2) Doing forw -mime will result in the following header being placed in
>the draft (just an example, you get the idea):
>
>Forward: +inbox 8 22 38
>
>Smart people will notice this looks a lot like the #forw mhbuild
>directive. This is not a coincidence :-)
>
>3) mhbuild will process any "Forward" headers at send(1) time and put
>them as message/rfc822 parts at the end of the message. mhbuild will
>still handle #forw directives in case someone wants to have exact control
>over their message content.
>
>4) After 1.7 comes out, Jon Steinhart will send a message to nmh-workers
>asking why forw doesn't work anymore :-) (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist).
>
>Thoughts? I realize this is a significant behavior change, and while I
>do poke fun at Jon occasionally he does bring up the fair point that
>breaking things is unfriendly. AFAICT nothing will break (everything will
>still work) but users will definitely notice a difference.
If I understand you, you are proposing to do, what you said yesterday, was
very difficult.
Norman Shapiro